Summary:
NCLB mandates annual testing but doesn't provide federal testing standards, leaving states to create their own standardized tests and measures of proficiency. The Act also does not require states to administer the same test from year to year, creating inconsistent results over time.
Schools must not only have their entire student body meet proficiency standards, but all of the different demographic subgroups (economically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, different races, student who aren't proficient in the English language, etc) to meet "Adequate Yearly Progress" (AYP) as well. This is an attempt to rectify the reliance on schoolwide averages and keep disadvantaged students from being neglected. While the act recognizes different student groups, it still neglects individual students, making educators unable to evaluate their own work.
Response:
If states are all developing their own tests and cut-off scores for proficiency, than is testing really standardized? What is the point of putting so much emphasis on these tests if the results are meaningless when compared? States can't learn from each other's successes and failures because of differing tests and standards. States can't even learn from their own scores because they are able to administer a different test every year if they so desire.
I think the judging of different demographics as well as the scores as a whole is a good-intentioned idea that didn't have enough thought put into it. As Article 4 (see below) discusses, the judgment of these groups can actually hurt the schools that serve them.
Article 2: A Critical Analysis of Educational Standards (Professional Journal)
Donald C. Orlich, “A Critical Analysis of Educational Standards (Winter 2010, pg. 40),” Professional Journal, AASA: Journal of Scholarship & Practice, http://0-www.aasa.org.helin.uri.edu/jsp.aspx.
Summary:
Education is being dehumanized by emphasis on standardized testing, with school being treated like "assembly lines of knowledge" and students treated like "products." It treats education in a mechanical way which is inappropriate for such a delicate human service.
Standards/curriculum is not consistent from state to state. The standards cover a variety of topics which seem almost randomly generated. They are sometimes note ever arranged in a meaningful sequence, nor are there flowcharts or any means of illustrating how a student or teacher should progress from one topic to another.
Information is often without context and irrelevant. Arizona developed an Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) for math assessment. In 1999-2000 the failure rate was 90%, 97% amongst minority students. Even as late as 2002, the failure rate was still 66%, with more than 80% of minority students failing. Glass and Edholm conducted a survey to test the validity of the skills being assessed, sending the survey to 54 managers in 10 different categories of industries in the greater Phoenix area. "The affirmative response rate to the survey prompt "mathematics used in daily work" ranged from a high of 26% to a low of 7%."
Response:
This journal really struck a chord with me as it summed up many of the issues I had with my schooling during my high school years. More often than not, my education felt mechanical and impersonal, which demotivated me and encouraged "the game of school."
The survey results were really an eye opener as well. It shows that the kid in your math class who asks the teacher "Why does any of this stuff even matter?" may actually be getting at something. When the curriculum/tests are bogus, the kids know, and it frustrates and demotivates them. It's the reason, I think, that so many students look at school as a chore instead of an opportunity. What they're learning isn't thought provoking or relevant. It's all "busy work" to them; work for the sake of work. I think that what would actually improve student achievement would be if the curriculum was less random in its sequence and had a greater emphasis on application than assessment.
Article 3: No Child Left Behind: Is the law improving student performance? (CQ Researcher)
Summary:
NCLB originally had enthusiastic bipartisan support of it's agenda of mandating "highly qualified" teachers in every classroom and holding schools accountable for raising the achievement of all students, labeling schools that failed to meet standards two years in a row as "in need of improvement" and punishing them. However, support has become badly frayed, with most agreeing that the act has been underfunded and poorly implemented.
Because each state determines its own academic standards, courses, and cutoff scores that determine proficiency, state to state score comparisons are meaningless. However, different schools in the same state can be compared. Most states claim that scores are increasing and the achievement gap is shrinking. However, studies by The Education Trust have revealed that while these findings are generally true for elementary schools, the results in middle and high schools are much more varied. In some of these schools, scores are even worsening and the achievement gap widening. Of course, in schools where scores are increasing, it's possible that it's a mere result of teachers teaching to the test.
Response:
As I asked in my response to Article 1 (see above), what's the point of so called "standardized testing" if the tests aren't actually standardized?
The results of NCLB in elementary schools compared to in middle and high schools is very interesting (seems to be helping in elementary but not in middle/high). My theory would be that the nature of the tests are better suited for elementary schools than for middle and high schools. The tests focus on basic skills, just like elementary school courses do. However, in middle and high schools, the curriculum should be beyond basic skills and delve more into the realms of critical thinking, analysis, and application. When courses at these levels inevitably start teaching to the test, the course is being dumbed down. Instead of focusing on the problem solving skills that will help students succeed in higher education and the workforce, the courses are focusing on memorizing useless terms without context. This is fine at an elementary level where basic skills are new to the students and they are not at the proper cognitive level to do in depth critical thinking, but not at the high school level.
Article 4: Race, Inequality, and Educational Accountability: The Irony of No Child Left Behind (Opinion Paper)
Summary:
At a glance, NCLB seems like it would help combat inequality, with its goals to raise the achievement level of all students and close the achievement gap. However, the act is more likely to harm these students than help them. It unintentionally penalizes schools with needy students, encouraging schools to keep out or push out these students. Wealthy schools spend around 10x as much as poorer schools do. NCLB does nothing to amend this. The small per-pupil dollar allocation the law makes to schools serving low-income students is well under 10% of schools' total spending. This is far to little to change their situation. Schools with a large population of special needs (disables, not proficient in English, etc) students have difficulty reaching standards and are shut down. Labeling low income schools that serve low income students as in need of improvement makes them less able to attract and keep good teachers.
Response:
This article really did a great job exposing the inequalities that NCLB is ironically enhancing. It analyzed aspects of the act in ways I previously overlooked. 100% proficiency rates seem ridiculous for even a high-achieving school, and for schools that started at a low performance rate, meeting this unrealistic goal is even more unrealistic and difficult. I think there needs to be more focus on improvement. Why should a school that started with an 80% proficiency rate and hardly improved over time get more money than a school that started with a low proficiency rate like 30% but managed to improve that to 60% in only a year? Sure the low performing school is still below the proficiency standard, but shouldn't it be rewarded for its vast improvement? The district is obviously doing something right if it managed to double its proficiency rate in a year. And what about the poor districts in need of help? Why should they be penalized for not being able to succeed as much as rich schools that can afford to spend 10x as much money? The current system is creating a never-ending cycle of inequality. The rich schools are getting richer and the poor schools are getting shut down.
Article 5: Sluggish Results Seen in National Math Scores (The New York Times)
Summary:
As of October 14, 2009, the latest results on the most important nationwide math test show that student achievement grew faster during the years before No Child Left Behind than since it was signed. Scores for 4th and 8th graders appears to have hit a plateau. There has been no improvement in closing the achievement gap. The latest results of the National Assessment show a mere 5 point improvement in fourth grade scores since NCLB, compared to an average growth of 11 points every six years in the years before NCLB. Not only are scores not increasing as fast as they used to, but the scores are not close to where they should be.
Response:
Out of all of the articles I gathered, I think this one may be the most ironic. Despite it's failures, one would think that with all of the teaching to the test and over-emphasis of test results that NCLB would at least yield higher test results (whether the results are relevant or not), but it can't even do that. I think a major contributing factor to this is the lack of context of the information. When teachers teach to the test, kids don't understand what they're learning. They're learning what things are but not why things are. Information with no context is more difficult to understand and more tedious to learn, so kids don't do as well on tests than they would if they actually knew what that equation they learned in math class meant.
How Has No Child Left Behind Affected Student Achievement?
by Rachel SteyertArticle 1: No Child Left Behind: Testing, Reporting, and Accountability (ERIC)
- Richard Wenning et al., “No Child Left Behind: Testing, Reporting, and Accountability. ERIC Digest.,” ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED480994&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED480994.
Summary:NCLB mandates annual testing but doesn't provide federal testing standards, leaving states to create their own standardized tests and measures of proficiency. The Act also does not require states to administer the same test from year to year, creating inconsistent results over time.
Schools must not only have their entire student body meet proficiency standards, but all of the different demographic subgroups (economically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, different races, student who aren't proficient in the English language, etc) to meet "Adequate Yearly Progress" (AYP) as well. This is an attempt to rectify the reliance on schoolwide averages and keep disadvantaged students from being neglected. While the act recognizes different student groups, it still neglects individual students, making educators unable to evaluate their own work.
Response:
If states are all developing their own tests and cut-off scores for proficiency, than is testing really standardized? What is the point of putting so much emphasis on these tests if the results are meaningless when compared? States can't learn from each other's successes and failures because of differing tests and standards. States can't even learn from their own scores because they are able to administer a different test every year if they so desire.
I think the judging of different demographics as well as the scores as a whole is a good-intentioned idea that didn't have enough thought put into it. As Article 4 (see below) discusses, the judgment of these groups can actually hurt the schools that serve them.
Article 2: A Critical Analysis of Educational Standards (Professional Journal)
- Donald C. Orlich, “A Critical Analysis of Educational Standards (Winter 2010, pg. 40),” Professional Journal, AASA: Journal of Scholarship & Practice, http://0-www.aasa.org.helin.uri.edu/jsp.aspx.
Summary:Education is being dehumanized by emphasis on standardized testing, with school being treated like "assembly lines of knowledge" and students treated like "products." It treats education in a mechanical way which is inappropriate for such a delicate human service.
Standards/curriculum is not consistent from state to state. The standards cover a variety of topics which seem almost randomly generated. They are sometimes note ever arranged in a meaningful sequence, nor are there flowcharts or any means of illustrating how a student or teacher should progress from one topic to another.
Information is often without context and irrelevant. Arizona developed an Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) for math assessment. In 1999-2000 the failure rate was 90%, 97% amongst minority students. Even as late as 2002, the failure rate was still 66%, with more than 80% of minority students failing. Glass and Edholm conducted a survey to test the validity of the skills being assessed, sending the survey to 54 managers in 10 different categories of industries in the greater Phoenix area. "The affirmative response rate to the survey prompt "mathematics used in daily work" ranged from a high of 26% to a low of 7%."
Response:
This journal really struck a chord with me as it summed up many of the issues I had with my schooling during my high school years. More often than not, my education felt mechanical and impersonal, which demotivated me and encouraged "the game of school."
The survey results were really an eye opener as well. It shows that the kid in your math class who asks the teacher "Why does any of this stuff even matter?" may actually be getting at something. When the curriculum/tests are bogus, the kids know, and it frustrates and demotivates them. It's the reason, I think, that so many students look at school as a chore instead of an opportunity. What they're learning isn't thought provoking or relevant. It's all "busy work" to them; work for the sake of work. I think that what would actually improve student achievement would be if the curriculum was less random in its sequence and had a greater emphasis on application than assessment.
Article 3: No Child Left Behind: Is the law improving student performance? (CQ Researcher)
- Barbara Mantel, “No Child Left Behind: Is the law improving student performance?,” CQ Researcher, http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2005052700&PHPSESSID=k3nolb0c4dpe4dpd7jmd2vlqa6.
Summary:NCLB originally had enthusiastic bipartisan support of it's agenda of mandating "highly qualified" teachers in every classroom and holding schools accountable for raising the achievement of all students, labeling schools that failed to meet standards two years in a row as "in need of improvement" and punishing them. However, support has become badly frayed, with most agreeing that the act has been underfunded and poorly implemented.
Because each state determines its own academic standards, courses, and cutoff scores that determine proficiency, state to state score comparisons are meaningless. However, different schools in the same state can be compared. Most states claim that scores are increasing and the achievement gap is shrinking. However, studies by The Education Trust have revealed that while these findings are generally true for elementary schools, the results in middle and high schools are much more varied. In some of these schools, scores are even worsening and the achievement gap widening. Of course, in schools where scores are increasing, it's possible that it's a mere result of teachers teaching to the test.
Response:
As I asked in my response to Article 1 (see above), what's the point of so called "standardized testing" if the tests aren't actually standardized?
The results of NCLB in elementary schools compared to in middle and high schools is very interesting (seems to be helping in elementary but not in middle/high). My theory would be that the nature of the tests are better suited for elementary schools than for middle and high schools. The tests focus on basic skills, just like elementary school courses do. However, in middle and high schools, the curriculum should be beyond basic skills and delve more into the realms of critical thinking, analysis, and application. When courses at these levels inevitably start teaching to the test, the course is being dumbed down. Instead of focusing on the problem solving skills that will help students succeed in higher education and the workforce, the courses are focusing on memorizing useless terms without context. This is fine at an elementary level where basic skills are new to the students and they are not at the proper cognitive level to do in depth critical thinking, but not at the high school level.
Article 4: Race, Inequality, and Educational Accountability: The Irony of No Child Left Behind (Opinion Paper)
- Linda Darling-Hammond, “Race, Inequality and Educational Accountability: The Irony of 'No Child Left Behind',” Opinion Paper, EBSCO Host, http://0-web.ebscohost.com.helin.uri.edu/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=106&sid=396e15f9-c263-4bf4-94b5-af1b2b4be691%40sessionmgr115&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=26461084#db=aph&AN=26461084#db=aph&AN=26461084.
Summary:At a glance, NCLB seems like it would help combat inequality, with its goals to raise the achievement level of all students and close the achievement gap. However, the act is more likely to harm these students than help them. It unintentionally penalizes schools with needy students, encouraging schools to keep out or push out these students. Wealthy schools spend around 10x as much as poorer schools do. NCLB does nothing to amend this. The small per-pupil dollar allocation the law makes to schools serving low-income students is well under 10% of schools' total spending. This is far to little to change their situation. Schools with a large population of special needs (disables, not proficient in English, etc) students have difficulty reaching standards and are shut down. Labeling low income schools that serve low income students as in need of improvement makes them less able to attract and keep good teachers.
Response:
This article really did a great job exposing the inequalities that NCLB is ironically enhancing. It analyzed aspects of the act in ways I previously overlooked. 100% proficiency rates seem ridiculous for even a high-achieving school, and for schools that started at a low performance rate, meeting this unrealistic goal is even more unrealistic and difficult. I think there needs to be more focus on improvement. Why should a school that started with an 80% proficiency rate and hardly improved over time get more money than a school that started with a low proficiency rate like 30% but managed to improve that to 60% in only a year? Sure the low performing school is still below the proficiency standard, but shouldn't it be rewarded for its vast improvement? The district is obviously doing something right if it managed to double its proficiency rate in a year. And what about the poor districts in need of help? Why should they be penalized for not being able to succeed as much as rich schools that can afford to spend 10x as much money? The current system is creating a never-ending cycle of inequality. The rich schools are getting richer and the poor schools are getting shut down.
Article 5: Sluggish Results Seen in National Math Scores (The New York Times)
- Sam Dillon, “Sluggish Results Seen in National Math Scores,” The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/education/15math.html?ref=no_child_left_behind_act.
Summary:As of October 14, 2009, the latest results on the most important nationwide math test show that student achievement grew faster during the years before No Child Left Behind than since it was signed. Scores for 4th and 8th graders appears to have hit a plateau. There has been no improvement in closing the achievement gap. The latest results of the National Assessment show a mere 5 point improvement in fourth grade scores since NCLB, compared to an average growth of 11 points every six years in the years before NCLB. Not only are scores not increasing as fast as they used to, but the scores are not close to where they should be.
Response:
Out of all of the articles I gathered, I think this one may be the most ironic. Despite it's failures, one would think that with all of the teaching to the test and over-emphasis of test results that NCLB would at least yield higher test results (whether the results are relevant or not), but it can't even do that. I think a major contributing factor to this is the lack of context of the information. When teachers teach to the test, kids don't understand what they're learning. They're learning what things are but not why things are. Information with no context is more difficult to understand and more tedious to learn, so kids don't do as well on tests than they would if they actually knew what that equation they learned in math class meant.